ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the following:

BACKGROUND

Contending that she suffered permanent injury and damages in an automobile accident ("Accident"), that was caused by the negligence of an underinsured motorist ("Tortfeasor"), Carmen Llaca ("Plaintiff") initiated this action against her insurer State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("Defendant") to recover the maximum uninsured motorist benefits ("UM Benefits") available under insurance policy number 916545659A ("Policy")—$50,000.00 ("UM Limit"). (See Doc. 2, ¶¶ 8, 10-15 ("Count One"); see also Doc. 18, p. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that her damages—including "permanent bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care treatment, and loss of earning and loss of ability to earn money"—are "in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00)." (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 9). In accordance with Florida Statutes, § 627.428 ("Fee Statute"), Plaintiff also seeks her attorney fees from Defendant. (Id. ¶ 14.)

Contending that this action is between parties who reside in different states and concerns an amount-in-controversy that exceeds $75,000.00 ("Controversy Requirement"), Defendant timely removed the action to this Court from the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida ("State Court"). (Doc. 1 ("Notice").) Noting that the UM Limit is $25,001.00 less than the Controversy Requirement, Plaintiff moved to remand ("Motion"). (Doc. 14.) Defendant responded (Doc. 18 ("Response")), and the matter is now ripe for adjudication.

STANDARDS

This Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction in "actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.@ See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (2015). If a state court action could have been initiated in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, then the defendant may remove to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1446(c) (2015). Based on the removing documents, the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties are diverse and the Controversy Requirement is met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B); see also Devore v. Howmedics Osteonics Corp., 658 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1379 (M.D. Fla. 2009). If the defendant fails to do so, then the Court must remand. See Leonard v. Enter. Rent-A-Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002).

DISCUSSION

In her Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court should remand this action to State Court because Defendant has not met its burden of proof concerning the Controversy Requirement.1 (See Doc. 14, pp. 2, 6-14; see also Doc. 2, ¶¶ 7-15.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant cannot meet its burden because: (1) Defendant's estimation of Plaintiff's potential damages is "speculative" and "misguided" (Doc. 14, p. 3); (2) Plaintiff's recovery under Count One cannot exceed the UM Limit; and (2) Plaintiff's remaining claims—for declaratory judgment and for Defendant's alleged violation of Florida Statutes, § 624.155 ("Bad Faith Statute")—are due to be dismissed as premature.2

In its Response, Defendant argues that the Court's jurisdictional analysis should not be restricted to the UM Limit because Defendant is "potentially liable for all Plaintiff's damages" under the Bad Faith Statute. (See Doc. 18, p. 7.) Defendant further argues that the Controversy Requirement is met because Plaintiff: (1) provided Defendant with documents indicating that her future medical expenses will exceed $128,000.00; and (2) in accordance with the Fee Statute,3 Plaintiff may recover "substantial" attorney fees if she prevails in this action. (See id. at 5-7.)

The law is well-settled that an insurance coverage breach of contract claim is distinct from a claim under the Bad Faith Statute, and the latter claim does not even accrue unless and until an insured prevails against her insurer on a coverage claim and establishes "the existence of liability on the part of the uninsured tortfeasor and the extent of the [insured's] damages." See Blanchard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 575 So.2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. St. Goddard, 936 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Expanding the Court's jurisdictional analysis to factor in damages that Plaintiff may never even be able to pursue—and definitely cannot obtain in this action—would contravene the Court's duty to "`scrupulously confine'" its jurisdiction "to the precise limits" defined by Congress. See Jackson-Platts v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 727 F.3d 1127, 1134 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1086 (11th Cir. 2010)). Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant's argument that the UM Limit is not the ceiling for purposes of the Court's jurisdictional analysis.4

Even if the Court's analysis could encompass damages available under a claim that is not pending before it, remand would still be required because Defendant has not supported its Notice with evidence sufficient to establish the Controversy Requirement by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant supported its Notice with: (1) a "Medical Impairment Report" dated January 23, 2013 ("2013 Report"), which Plaintiff's treating physician—Dr. Merrill W. Reuter ("Dr. Reuter")—provided to Plaintiff's attorney (Doc. 1-3); and (2) a printout from https://www.socialsecurity.gov/ providing estimations of life expectancy for a female born on April 25, 1958 (Doc. 1-4 ("LE Estimate")). (See Doc. 18, pp. 2-6.) Based on these documents, Defendant contends that at least $128,300.00 in damages are at issue because:

(See Doc. 18, p. 5.)

These noncommittal estimations of Plaintiff's Future Cost of Care and need for surgery is accompanied by Dr. Reuter's finding that "further recovery or deterioration" of Plaintiff's conditions are "not anticipated" because Plaintiff "reached a point of plateau and accordingly maximum medical improvement" ("MMI") regarding the Accident. (See Doc. 1-3, p. 5.) Together, the MMI finding and equivocal wording greatly diminishes the value of the 2013 Report as evidence that the Controversy Requirement is met.5 Absent other supporting evidence,6 the Court cannot find that Defendant satisfied its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Controversy Requirement is met.7 Accordingly, this action is due to be remanded to the State Court.8

CONCLUSION

It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

DONE AND ORDERED.